Offering clients the experience and diversity of a larger firm while retaining the approachability, efficiency and personal attention of a smaller practice.
New Cases of Interest - July 26, 2011
Ball v. Steadfast-BLK (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 694. This is a case which deals with the question of whether a contractor may foreclose a mechanics lien if the contractor was duly licensed, but not under the particular fictitious business name that was used in performing the work for which the lien was filed. The Court of Appeal found that the trial court order, which had not allowed the contractor to foreclose, was in error. The contractor was licensed as a “sole owner” pursuant to Business and Professions Code §7065. The fictitious business name used by the contractor was not an entity that could be licensed. It was only a business name under which the individual licensee did business. The contractor’s failure to contract in the exact same name that was set forth on his license might be, at most, grounds for disciplinary action, but it did not bar the contractor from recovering for work he performed under the contract that he was duly licensed to perform.